Overview of “A.I. Loses the Popular Vote”
In this New Yorker conversation, historian Jill Lepore discusses what voter resistance to data centers may reveal about public attitudes toward AI and Silicon Valley’s political power. She connects today’s technology debate to earlier promises that computers, the internet, and social media would strengthen democracy, and argues that Congress must take a more active role in overseeing AI.
What the Data-Center Backlash Signals
Lepore describes the election as a turning point: candidates who supported data-center projects faced resistance, while many local ballot initiatives opposing them succeeded. She says the backlash crosses party lines and may reflect several concerns:
- Environmental and community impacts, and anger over projects approved without local input.
- A feeling that people have little control over the technology shaping their lives.
- Frustration with the effects of phones and social platforms on relationships, work, and access to reliable political information.
- A decline in local news that can leave residents unaware of developments in their communities.
Lepore cautions that it is too early to know whether these results signal a lasting political movement. She also distinguishes opposition to data centers from anger at delivery robots and self-driving cars, which may be related but is not the same.
The “Artificial State” and Technology’s Democratic Promise
Lepore defines the “artificial state” as digital infrastructure that replaces democratic institutions and public spaces instead of supporting them. A computer helping the Census Bureau count people aids the state; a corporate platform presented as a substitute for public deliberation can weaken it.
She traces a recurring promise from Apple’s 1984 Macintosh ad through the public internet, social media, and generative AI: each new technology is presented as a force for democracy. Yet the same tools can enable surveillance, propaganda, and concentrated corporate influence. Lepore argues that platforms such as Twitter were never representative of the public, even as politicians treated them as a measure of public opinion; she says bots now make that problem worse.
Historical Roots of Techno-Utopianism
Lepore links Silicon Valley’s claims about expert-led technological progress to the Technocracy movement of the 1930s. Its supporters argued that democracy could not manage an industrial economy and proposed rule by scientists and engineers. The movement lost support in the United States after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election, but its ideas resemble some modern tech-utopian arguments.
She also discusses the influence of science fiction, which has long imagined machines replacing human rule. In many of these stories, the machine-dependent society eventually collapses because it relies on finite natural resources. Lepore’s book, The Rise and Fall of the Artificial State, draws on these historical and fictional patterns.
Why Congressional Oversight Matters
Lepore argues that law often moves more slowly than technology, but says caution has been used to justify leaving technology companies largely unregulated. She challenges the claim that regulation always stifles innovation, pointing to early radio oversight as an example of planning that helped a technology develop.
AI also raises legal questions about responsibility. If an AI agent commits a crime while acting for someone, it is unclear whether responsibility lies with the user, the software company, or another party. Lepore says Congress should study these questions and assess AI’s economic and social effects rather than rely only on lawsuits after harm occurs.
She questions whether the U.S.–China AI race is as inevitable as it is often portrayed, comparing it to past claims of a Cold War missile gap. Unlike nuclear weapons, however, AI is already widely used in everyday life, which makes the analogy incomplete.
The Takeaway
The election results suggest voters can challenge the power of technology companies, but Lepore says they do not yet show that Silicon Valley’s influence has been broadly curtailed. Whether the backlash leads to lasting change may depend on whether Congress undertakes serious oversight and whether public concern turns into organized political action.